In modern times, many countries around the world have improved their transportation for citizens to commute to work and study. While there are others advocate for the government to allocate the majority of the budgets into creating more railway lines for fast trains to travel between cities, some believe that the money should be use to improve the current public transport. In my opinion, creating new railway lines for trains to travel will benefit society in the long terms.
On the one hand, people want to improve existing public transport for various reasons but mainly for it affordable price. Public transport does not require a large amount of fuel in order to transport people to their desire destination, which means the cost to travel with public transport will be less than a train ticket. Hence, more people would use public transport. For instance, in Vietnam, a bus ticket only cost around 20.000 dong to 50.000 dong to travel.
On the other hand, I would argue that constructing railway lines for fast train will be more beneficial in the long run. Firstly, it will increase job opportunities. Many people are searching for jobs that is around their city, which can limit their job search. With the construction of new railway lines, fast trains will be able to transport people to a different city with little amount of time cost. Thus, increase the range of that they can get a job since they can travel to different city with no time lost. For example, a person can travel to Hanoi to work or study and go back to their home which located in Ho Chi Minh city. Secondly, reduce the air pollution. Train can carry a large sum of passengers per travel, which means it will exhaust less fumes for travel. As a result, it will improve the air quality in the city.
In conclusion, some people want the government to use the nations budgets to create railway lines for fast trains, while others think the money should be use to improve the current public transport. I believe that the construction of new railway lines will be more beneficials for the future.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
..., some believe that the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: BE_USE_TO_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
..., some believe that the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
..., some believe that the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Line 1, column 430, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'traveling', 'travelling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'train' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: traveling; travelling
..., creating new railway lines for trains to travel will benefit society in the long terms....
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 753, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun fumes is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...per travel, which means it will exhaust less fumes for travel. As a result, it will ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 155, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... while others think the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Line 4, column 155, Rule ID: BE_USE_TO_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... while others think the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Line 4, column 155, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... while others think the money should be use to improve the current public transport...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1719.0 1615.20841683 106% => OK
No of words: 360.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.775 5.12529762239 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41695240967 2.80592935109 86% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.463888888889 0.561755894193 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 515.7 506.74238477 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.60771543086 87% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8132913952 49.4020404114 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.55555555556 7.06120827912 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.01903807615 159% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375433013162 0.244688304435 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123792945588 0.084324248473 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106833880499 0.0667982634062 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274926889255 0.151304729494 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0936617785783 0.056905535591 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.0946893788 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 50.2224549098 136% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.3001002004 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.4159519038 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.58950901804 87% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 78.4519038076 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.